tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post3962563399301401676..comments2024-03-28T09:59:13.754-07:00Comments on bionic mosquito: The Libertarian Movement IIbionic mosquitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-69350450889384896472019-08-02T05:03:50.937-07:002019-08-02T05:03:50.937-07:00Zack, in reading Woody's reply below, I though...Zack, in reading Woody's reply below, I thought to come back to your comment. In my opinion, we do need a metaphysical absolute to arrive at an ethical absolute. Otherwise who decides?<br /><br />If you assume material monism as your metaphysics, you have not gone far enough. It seems the more that science learns, the more it realizes that it doesn't know anything:<br /><br />https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/08/no_author/what-anesthesia-reveals-to-us-about-human-consciousness/ bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-35123389511998993562019-07-31T08:24:43.424-07:002019-07-31T08:24:43.424-07:00Bionic said: "I know that I have read this wo...Bionic said: "I know that I have read this work from Rothbard before, long ago. I think I must not have been mature enough to understand it."<br /><br />I find that well-written / inspired books tend to provide additional information on multiple reads. The human mind simply cannot see things from more than one viewpoint at a time. And it is our viewpoint that helps prepare us to receive insight and inspiration. <br /><br />ZW said: "To take the conversation further, do you think we need a metaphysical absolute to arrive [at] the ethical absolute?"<br /><br />Without an untouchable, authoritative source, there can be no absolute. Without a "God" - some being can know more and see farther than us - we are left to ourselves, endlessly arguing over some meaningless point with only our limited and finite understanding. Without some higher being who loves us, we have no loyalty or reason to recognize or endorse any sort of "absolute". <br /><br />I believe that Bionic has made some progress in laying a firm foundation for libertarian research into the additional, yet undiscovered natural laws which govern a free society. I look forward to reading his book.Woody Barretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07174366266746908252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-86787171968252240352019-07-23T10:33:45.365-07:002019-07-23T10:33:45.365-07:00Zack, this is way above me; I have greatly simplif...Zack, this is way above me; I have greatly simplified my analysis, as follows:<br /><br />"I don’t see how we can arrive at view of human nature that justifies a natural law or ethical absolutism."<br /><br />Jesus gave us the target. He is Plato's Form of the Good made manifest. If you have not done so and are interested in how I have come to this, start here:<br /><br />http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/p/the-book.html bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-91127229844596670632019-07-22T22:01:16.795-07:002019-07-22T22:01:16.795-07:00Hi Bionic,
Thanks for the post. I have thought al...Hi Bionic,<br /><br />Thanks for the post. I have thought along similar lines myself. To take the conversation further, do you think we need a metaphysical absolute to arrive an the ethical absolute? It seems to me that we need to understand human nature if we are going to talk about natural law, and we need to understand metaphysics if we are going to talk about human nature. For example, if we assume metaphysical naturalism (i.e., material monism) as our metaphysic, I don’t see how we can arrive at view of human nature that justifies a natural law or ethical absolutism. I would love to hear your thoughts on this. <br /><br />Zack W.ZWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04597708202847181675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-10359834013862482342019-07-17T09:21:01.451-07:002019-07-17T09:21:01.451-07:00There will be disagreements, and as long as bounda...There will be disagreements, and as long as boundaries (borders) are accepted, these disagreements can co-exist on the same planet.<br /><br />For my purposes, I look to Jesus for the example. We can never hit a target unless we have one at which to aim. In this case, we will never be precise; but we have a target.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-71537480111806386362019-07-17T09:18:55.938-07:002019-07-17T09:18:55.938-07:00I take from Rothbard's comments quoted above a...I take from Rothbard's comments quoted above and more fully developed in the linked post that he finds other ethical values as absolute: in other words, objective, to be discovered.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-45196508796341411232019-07-17T07:13:10.853-07:002019-07-17T07:13:10.853-07:00I'm all for absolutist ethics but there will i...I'm all for absolutist ethics but there will inevitably be disagreements as to what precisely those ethics should be.<br /><br />That's not a statement born of moral relativism, but rather of the realization that our models of the world necessarily fall well short of the real thing, so any ethics/worldview must make a number of assumptions and approximations.<br /><br />Small wonder, then, that the most popular worldviews for "mass consumption" have been those with a substantial amount of leeway for interpretation (like, say, Marxism), leading to the common criticism that those systems are constantly flip-flopping in the face of reality.<br /><br />In that sense I must agree with the (leftist?) sentiment that some degree of tolerance between opposing worldviews is necessary. But then that is rather obvious. If every tiny disagreement were a reason to start shooting then mankind wouldn't have had a very long run. Yet the leftists make of "tolerance" an end in itself when it is really just a practical concession to our limitations in finding and adhering to what is correct.<br /><br />That's the issue I identify with most "well meaning" leftists (i.e.: useful idiots) today, they assume that the business of living will magically take care of itself and the only thing we need to worry about is not getting in each other's way.cosmic dwarfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16562864681773374828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-54356588559933619952019-07-16T12:25:13.057-07:002019-07-16T12:25:13.057-07:00You have clearly read more Rothbard than I have so...You have clearly read more Rothbard than I have so I ask sincerely: does he assert that the NAP is the only absolute? I thought he took the position that it is the first and all else is derivative of the NAP. Whereas the “thicker” the libertarian the more exceptions to the NAP are accepted. That seems to be the continuum along which the lines are drawn assuming there is a libertarian movement. Joshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649381776584003799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-87555745061255835532019-07-16T03:41:26.296-07:002019-07-16T03:41:26.296-07:00Ayn Rand would have agreed with you on the necessi...Ayn Rand would have agreed with you on the necessity of a philosophical basis for human liberty, though I suspect you would have disagreed on based on your respective philosophies. So 'thick' libertarianism has existed for some time, but there is where the disagreements and disunity originates. The common denominator seems to be down the philosophical road a bit, where all parties align on 'don't hurt people or take their stuff.'Kojak's Dadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05716171865564466707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-51156656959583398382019-07-15T13:54:50.862-07:002019-07-15T13:54:50.862-07:00Thank you for today’s post (July 15, 2019, The Lib...Thank you for today’s post (July 15, 2019, The Libertarian Movement II). This isn’t the first time I’ve read Walter Block make a similar statement, and admittedly it made my hackles rise yet again. I doubt a concept such as veneration of individual liberty could ever belong to a select or anointed group. It may be only a semantic error on his part because I likewise doubt Block thinks that. Peg in Oregon<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com